A habitation layer from the Intermediate Bronze Age (2200–2000 BCE) was exposed and remains of installations, pits and cupmarks hewn in travertine were excavated (Fig. 2). The remains were located very close to the surface (depth 0.1–0.4 m). It was apparent in the northwest of the excavation that mechanical equipment had previously removed the ancient surface layer and the bedrock surface, damaging the rock-hewn remains. The disturbance contained gravel, limestone and basalt fill.
Two adjacent installations and a work surface alongside them were exposed in the eastern corner of the area (Fig. 3); the installations had been damaged when a trial trench was dug there prior to the excavation. The northern installation was a tabun installed in a concave pit hewn in the bedrock (T1; outer diam. 1.16 m, inner diam. 0.63 m, depth 0.38 m; Fig. 4). The side of the tabun was made of light brown clay (preserved height 0.26–0.30 m, thickness 0.14 m; Fig. 5) and was found covered on the inside with a thin layer of travertine. The side was set on the concave part of the pit’s rock-hewn side, whose bottom was the floor of the tabun. The installation’s interior was found filled with tabun collapse and alluvium mixed with flint debitage and several potsherds, above a thin layer of ash on the tabun floor (L1038). A brown clay surface (max. length 1 m, max. width 0.9 m, height 8 cm; Fig. 6) was discovered just east of the tabun, incorporated in a rock-cutting and protruding slightly (1–4 cm) above the bedrock. It seems that the clay surface, which was heat resistant, was used in conjunction with the tabun or with work connected to another adjacent installation (T2). South of the tabun was Installation T2, a circular rock-cutting (diam. 1.1 m, height 0.15 m) with two elements opposite each other, which were made of light brown clay. An elliptical chunk was in the eastern half and an elliptical frame that enclosed a trapezoidal cavity was in the western half (Fig. 7). Tiny hard limestone and flint fieldstones were found between the elements and in the trapezoidal cavity. The finds were covered with clay tabun collapse and gray alluvium. It is unclear what the installation was used for; however, its proximity to the tabun and the work surface and its being made of clay might indicate an activity connected with fire, possibly a tabun.
Four rock-hewn pits were revealed (B1–B4).
Two phases were discerned in Pit B1 (diam. 1.1 m, depth 1.06 m; Fig. 8), whose eastern side was damaged by the trial trench. The bottom of the pit served as a floor in the early phase and in the later phase the floor level was raised with fill (L1009; height 0.28 m) consisting of gray soil, several tiny fieldstones, flint debitage, a bone fragment of sheep/goat and potsherds (see ceramic finds below). A floor founded on the fill was composed of a thick layer (0.4 m) of compacted, tiny hard limestone and flint fieldstones, placed closely together (Fig. 2: Section 2–2). The pit from the second phase was filled with alluvium and contained fragments of animal bones, a flint blade and potsherds (L1003; see below).
Pit B2 (diam. 1.1 m, depth 0.77 m; Figs. 9, 10) was filled with alluvium, very small fieldstones, several fragments of animal bones, flint debitage and potsherds (L1016).
Pit B3 (diam. 1 m, depth 0.72 m; Fig. 11) had smooth, upright sides and its floor sloped slightly to the southwest. A black stained patch, probably soot, was on the side of the pit and its floor (Fig. 12), but no other signs of burning were discovered. The pit was filled with alluvium, tiny fieldstones and pottery fragments (L1013).
Pit B4 was exposed in an area damaged by mechanical equipment and its upper part was therefore missing. The pit was elliptical (preserved height 0.42 m; Fig. 13) and filled with gray alluvium, some very small fieldstones and several potsherds (L1032).
Twelve rock-hewn cupmarks (S1–S12; rim diam. 0.16–0.30 m, depth 0.12–0.33 m; Figs. 14–17) of various shapes, such as an inverted truncated cone (S1), cylinder (S5) and concave cavity (S3), were exposed. Cupmarks S9–S12 had been damaged by mechanical equipment and their upper parts were missing. The cupmarks were filled with soft alluvium; tiny hard limestone and flint fieldstones were discovered in some of them (S4–S6, S8) and potsherds were found in several of them.
The Intermediate Bronze Age remains previously discovered in the region of Tel Menora were only found in tombs and burial caves. Remains of a settlement from this period were exposed for the first time in this excavation, which indicate its location and possibly its nature. The excavated site was part of a large settlement from the Intermediate Bronze Age and was located along its southern fringes. The ceramic finds indicate the settlement was open. It seems that the site was used as an open area, possibly a large courtyard, which contained installations and rock-hewn pits, probably for domestic use. Tabun T1, Installation T2 and the clay surface were apparently a focal point where baking and cooking had taken place. 
No clear evidence as to the nature of use of the hewn pits was found. Pit B3 might have been used for burning. Fragments of pottery vessels from the Intermediate Bronze Age (Fig. 18:1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9–11, 16, 17, 19–21; see below) were found above the bottom floor of Pit B1; hence the final use of the original floor was in this period. The potsherds above the stone floor of the second phase also dated to this period (Fig. 18: 8, 14, 15, 18). Potsherds that only dated to this period (Fig. 18:12, 13; see below) were found in Pit B2, as well as west of the pits, on a habitation level on the bedrock (L1004; Fig. 18:3, 5; see below). Since no earlier potsherds were found at the site, it can be stated that Pit B1 was hewn and used in both of its phases in the Intermediate Bronze Age, and on the basis of this claim, the entire site can be dated to this period. Some of the pits were presumably used for storage.
The use of the cupmarks is unclear, but it should be noted that eight of them were arranged in a semicircle and may have been used as pits for wooden beams of a fence or posts that supported a thatched roof that shaded part of the open area. The two cupmarks adjacent to the tabun were used in conjunction with it.
The site is characterized by rock-cuttings in travertine and the fact that all of the finds were found to be hewn or integrated in rock-cuttings reflects the maximum utilization of the bedrock in the absence of other quality building materials. Therefore, one can reasonably assume that the tiny hard limestone and flint fieldstones used in the floor of the later phase in Pit B1 and in Installation T2 were brought there from nearby Nahal Bezeq.  
Ceramic Finds
Eli Yannai
The Intermediate Bronze Age pottery vessels found at the site (Fig. 18) are similar to vessels from adjacent sites in the northern Jordan Valley. Those assemblages were found in tombs and settlements, on tells and in open sites. On the basis of the finds, the assemblage comes from an open settlement.
Bowl (Fig. 18:1). Wheel-thrown, open flat form with straight sides, a folded out rim with a shallow groove. A similar bowl at ­Horbat Qishron (Smithline 2002: Fig. 13:5).
Bowl (Fig. 18:2). Wheel-thrown with a slightly curved side, and a deep groove on the upper part of the rim. Similar bowls at Sha‘ar Ha-Golan (Eisenberg 2012: Fig. 41:1, 2), Menahamiya (Bahat 1976: Fig. 3:5) and Tel ‘Artal (Hess 1984: Fig. 1:1).
Bowl (Fig. 18:3). Wheel-thrown straight side whose upper part is slightly thickened, a triangular rim with a delicate groove on the upper part. A similar bowl at Horbat Qishron (Smithline 2002: Fig. 13:9).
Bowl (Fig. 18:4). Wheel-thrown, curved side, ledge-like rim folded in with a straight horizontal finish. Similar bowls at Sha‘ar Ha-Golan (Eisenberg 2012: Fig. 41:8), Horbat Qishron (Smithline 2002: Fig. 10:9) and in Phase 2 at Iktanu (Prag 1974: Fig. 7: 6).
Bowl (Fig. 18:5). Wheel-thrown, curved side, a rim that protrudes in and out, horizontal on top.The added material on the inside and outside of the rim was intended to reinforce the rims of large diameter bowls of this type.Similar bowls at Sha‘ar Ha-Golan (Eisenberg 2012: Fig. 41:3, 5), Horbat Qishron (Smithline 2002: Fig. 11:3), in Stratum V at ‘Afula (Gal and Covello-Paran 1996: Fig. 10:4) and in Dharet Umm el-Marar in Transjordan (Palumbo 1991: Fig. 37:1).
Cooking pot (Fig. 18:6). Handmade; a thin almost upright side, slightly inverted, and a rounded rim the same thickness as the side.
Cooking pot (Fig. 18:7). Handmade; a thick inverted side and a rounded rim that is slightly thinner than the thickness of the side. A similar cooking pot at Khirbat Iskander in Transjordan (Richard 2009: Fig. 5:1).
Jar (Fig. 18:8). Wheel-thrown rim, rounded toward the outside and cut square. Similar jars at Sha‘ar Ha-Golan (Eisenberg 2012: Fig. 47:5, 7), Horbat Qishron (Smithline 2002: Fig. 17:9) and in Stratum V at ‘Afula (Gal and Covello-Paran 1996: Fig. 11:12).
Jar (Fig. 18: 9). Wheel-thrown rim, rounded toward the outside with a curved slightly sharp finish on the outside. Similar jars at Sha‘ar Ha-Golan (Eisenberg 2012: Fig. 46:2), Tel ‘Artal (Hess 1984: Fig. 1:10) and Horbat Qishron (Smithline 2002: Fig. 16:7).
Jar (Fig. 18:10). Wheel-thrown broad everted neck, a rim with a grooved finish on its upper inside. Similar jars at Sha‘ar Ha-Golan (Eisenberg 2012: Figs. 46:2, 47:3), Tel ‘Artal (Hess 1984: Fig. 1:10), in Stratum V at ‘Afula (Gal and Covello-Paran 1996: Fig. 11:15, 16), Horbat Qishron (Smithline 2002: Fig. 16:11) and in Area R6 at Tel Bet She‘an (Mazar 2006: Fig. 3:4).
Jar (Fig. 18:11). A shoulder rounded upward, neck rounded outward, a rim identical to that of the jar in Fig. 18:9, and a row of delicate grooves on the neck (not marked in drawing). Similar jars at Sha‘ar Ha-Golan (Eisenberg 2012: Fig. 47:4) and Horbat Qishron (Smithline 2002: Fig. 16:12).
Jar (Fig. 18:12). Wheel-thrown neck that curves sharply toward the outside, and a rim with a grooved finish on the lower outside part. A similar rim at Sha‘ar Ha-Golan (Eisenberg 2012: Fig. 44:3).
Jar (Fig. 18:13). An everted neck and a rim sharply folded out. Similar jars at Sha‘ar Ha-Golan (Eisenberg 2012: Fig. 45:1), Menahamiya (Bahat 1976: Fig. 2.14), Tiberias (Tzaferis 1968: Fig. 5:11), ‘Ein Hilu (Covello-Paran 1999: Fig. 43:7) and Horbat Qishron (Smithline 2002: Fig. 16:1).
Holemouth (Fig. 18:14). A thick side and a cut rim with a sharp edge and horizontal on top. Similar holemouths characterize a variety of vessel types: jars, kraters and cooking pots. On the basis of the fabric, the fragment from the site is not a cooking pot. Similar vessels with thin and thick sides at Sha‘ar Ha-Golan (Eisenberg 2012: Fig. 43:8, 12), Horbat Qishron (Smithline 2002: Fig. 14:14, 16) and Tell Abu en-Niaj in Transjordan (Palumbo 1991: Fig. 42:6).
Ledge handle (Fig. 18:15). A ledge handle folded like an envelope. Similar handles on the bodies of jars at Sha‘ar Ha-Golan (Eisenberg 2012: Figs. 45:2, 46:1, 2, 47:2).
Ledge handle (Fig. 18:16). A ledge handle with a slight open fold. Similar handles on bowls at Sha‘ar Ha-Golan (Eisenberg 2012: Fig. 41:2, 7). Based on the wall thickness of the handle from Tirat Zvi, it apparently belonged to a jar. 
Knob handle (Fig. 18:17). No similar handles were found.
Rope ornamentation (Fig. 18:18). A rope ornamentation on the body of a jar was found at Sha‘ar Ha-Golan (Eisenberg 2012: Fig. 48:1, 3) and was also common at other sites as far away as the Jerusalem hills and the coastal plain (Milevski et al. 2012: Fig. 20: 9).
Bases (Fig. 18:19–21). Similar flat bases are characteristic of kraters from the Intermediate Bronze Age throughout the country, especially in the south and in the Jordan Valley, as far north as the Hula Valley. On the basis of the body’s carination and wall thickness the bases belonged to jars.